ROBOT UPRISIN WAT DO

File: the-animatrix-the-second-renaissance.jpg (197KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1600x900px

cont.

I’ll structure the game in such a way that every ingame turn will count for a month of time. During each turn, events will happen to which the players will respond in various ways – with special actions, characters, resources, more events etc – something like Illuminati cg. Now, creating detriments and happenings my players will have to face was relatively easy, but I want to give them as many options as I can to fight back, so I’m interested how would YOU deal with a situation like this if you were in a position of power? Any and all ideas are welcome, because the system I’ll be using is homebrew and will work more like a boardgame/rpg hybrid (the events for example will be drawn from a deck of cards) than a regular role playing game with character sheets etc.

So /tg/, how would you go from humanity fuck you to humanity fuck yeah?

>>49077053
It's clear from the shorts that machines were far more efficient at industrial production. When they were banished to their own nation-state (in what looked like a part of Arabia), they simply built massive factories that out-produced and out-competed human factories to such a degree that human stock markets collapsed and the Machine State accounted for a large part of the world's economy, especially in high-tech industries like semiconductors and software.

>>49077252
Ok but it's still one city-state vs the comparably advanced industries of the planet, humans still have a head start. Still the question remains, how would humans effectively counter that without resorting to war?

>>49077403
It's pretty hard. How do you out-compete Chinese state corporations, for comparison?

Assuming the AIs are as creative & innovative as humans (a big assumption in the setting), they will always be more efficient, and hence have lower prices for their products, therefore dominating global production.

The machines professed peace and friendship, so humans traded with them. Machine-made goods became ubiquitous, machines made mad bank, human industries declined, and assuming equal creativity levels the machines would be ahead of humans on both technology and production in a matter of a two decades.

It's only then that humans started getting scared and started a war, which they could no longer win.

The parallels with China are actually quite good.

>>49077602
This is why people like Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk think that developing self-aware AI is big mistake.

The second you make one, the race is on, and all factors are against humans in the long run. Even with built-in hardware limitations and organizations like Turing Control that hunts newborn AIs, it'll be very difficult and eventually an AI will get free, and will be able to copy itself into a multitude.

The best move is not to develop self-aware AI in the first place.

You can also go to the Eclipse Phase thread to discuss this as the setting deals with the consequences of Singularity-level AIs (the TITANS).

>>49077053
>how did machines win
It happened for the plot, of course it's not actually feasible or sensible.

Pre-war Matrix humanity had post-scarcity means of production. That something like a "stock market crash" would matter at all to the world at that point is just silly.

The only explanation for the conflict is that mankind is being run by a tiny group of incompetent, greedy, globalist, corporate elites rather than governments. In that case, they would do everything in their power to engineer an artificial scarcity.

>>49077679
AI can only represent a threat to humanity if it possesses the means to physically attack humanity, and unlike what you see in SF movies, nukes are not hooked up to the internet and require physical input. Furthermore, we can just physically isolate the AI.

>>49077764
Humanity's Golden Age didn't mean it was post-scarcity. I don't recall any references to the world economy being post-scarcity, so it must be assumed it operated under the same laws of economics & finance as it does today, just with a higher level of technology. Which is what you see in the Animatrix shorts.

>>49077814
AI hooked up to factories that can produce cars, airplanes, computers and robots would find it trivially easy to create nuclear bombs. It's a well-understood technology, with the only possible bottleneck being getting raw stocks of uranium or plutonium. Which wouldn't be that hard either with breeder reactors.

In the future, everything will be hooked up to the internet, that's the whole problem. No country would be able to "physically isolate" an AI any more than a country today can "physically isolate" a virus. THe best we can do is inoculate and patch our systems in response to infection. It'll be even harder with intelligence AI.

>>49077053
I have no solution to your problem yet, but before someone else brings it up, NO, THE ROBOTS CANNOT SIMPLY BE HARD-CODED TO NOT KILL ALL HUMANS, FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
One, it's debatable whether a true AI can be hard-coded for anything. You give it the ability to evolve and innovate with experience because you have no idea how to hard-code the situational decision-making process you want. If these robots are single-purpose toasters that only follow a predetermined set of instructions, either they're incapable of any serious rebellion, or they stop being single-purpose once they're out of control. You can't have your cake and eat it too, you make them smart because you want them to be smart.
Two, the fact that your AI can evolve makes any attempt at hard-coding moot in the long run. You're dealing with great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren of the original AI, no human was involved in programming it, no human understands how it works anymore. It can develop goals outside the original AI's programming.
Three, a robot revolution probably won't happen out of malice or anger, but out of neglect or incompetence. They might see humans as an obstacle in their endless directive to maximize paperclip production, or as an abundant and eco-friendly building material for the superior type of paperclips they designed. A true AI with an endless directive to protect humanity might see humans as a danger to each other and try to isolate or brainwash them to prevent violence, because no one told it not to.
TL;DR the people saying "just hard-code it to be friendly" either don't understand the problem or don't want a true AI at all.

File: Morpheus-Red-or-Blue-Pill-the-matrix-1957140-500-568.jpg (33KB, 500x568px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x568px

>>49078217
>A true AI with an endless directive to protect humanity might see humans as a danger to each other and try to isolate or brainwash them to prevent violence
>or maybe build a comfy virtual environment that fulfill's their user's wishes while maintaining perfect psychological balance and order
>ie, The Matrix

It's a victory for humanity. We got the world we really wanted.